Naval Sea Systems Command awards $428M contract for engineering technical services, with a significant portion for Minehunter Costal Non-Mag-MHC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,267,675 ($31.3M)

Contractor: Fincantieri Marine Systems North America, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-11-15

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,780 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200207!022370!1700!BZ002 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002402C2204 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20011115!20020930!113068027!428407506!432811750!N!FDGM, INC !800 PRINCIPLE COURT, SUITE!CHESAPEAKE !VA!23320!16000!550!51!CHESAPEAKE !CHESAPEAKE (CITY) !VIRGINIA !+000000032000!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !A3 !SHIPS !2SFF!MINEHUNTER COSTL NON-MAG-MHC !541330!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!N!J!1!001!N!1G!Z!Y!A! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !A! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: CHESAPEAKE, CHESAPEAKE CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23320

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.3 million to FINCANTIERI MARINE SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC. for work described as: 200207!022370!1700!BZ002 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002402C2204 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20011115!20020930!113068027!428407506!432811750!N!FDGM, INC !800 PRINCIPLE COURT, SUITE!CHESAPEAKE !VA!23320!16000!550!51!CHESAPEAKE !CHESA… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for specialized engineering and technical services, crucial for naval operations. 2. The contract's value suggests a long-term need for these specialized skills within the Navy. 3. Performance period spans over 1.5 years, indicating ongoing project requirements. 4. The primary focus on Minehunter Costal Non-Mag-MHC points to specific fleet modernization or maintenance needs. 5. Engineering services are vital for maintaining and upgrading complex naval systems. 6. The contract's 'Not Competed' status warrants further investigation into the justification for sole-source procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $428,407,506 for engineering technical services appears substantial. Without specific benchmarks for similar naval engineering contracts or detailed scope of work, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the 'Not Competed' nature raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible pricing. Further analysis would require comparing this contract's unit costs or overall price against industry standards for comparable services, especially given the specialized nature of Minehunter support.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as 'Not Competed,' indicating a sole-source procurement. The specific justification for this approach is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, sole-source awards occur when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. This lack of competition means that the government did not explore potential alternatives or engage in a bidding process, which can limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: A sole-source award means taxpayers may not have benefited from competitive pricing that could have resulted from multiple bidders vying for the contract. This can lead to a less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) benefits through the acquisition of essential engineering and technical services. The services delivered are critical for the maintenance, upgrade, and operational readiness of naval vessels, specifically the Minehunter Costal Non-Mag-MHC. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, supporting naval operations and potentially involving personnel in Virginia where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include the employment of engineers and technical specialists required to fulfill the contract's scope.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer money.
The 'Not Competed' status requires a thorough review of the justification to ensure it was appropriate and that no viable alternatives were overlooked.
Limited transparency into the specific services and deliverables could obscure performance monitoring and accountability.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to FDGM, INC., a known entity in the defense sector.
The contract addresses a specific and critical need for naval engineering and technical services.
The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides some cost certainty for the government.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting the defense industry's naval segment. The market for specialized naval engineering and technical support is often characterized by a limited number of highly qualified contractors due to the unique requirements and security clearances involved. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within other large-scale naval modernization or sustainment contracts, which often run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb fields) was not a primary consideration or requirement for this contract, as both are marked as false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting plans. This suggests that the prime contractor, FDGM, INC., is not obligated to engage small businesses for a significant portion of this work, potentially limiting opportunities for the small business ecosystem in this specific procurement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense and the Naval Sea Systems Command. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is also listed, indicating their role in contract administration and oversight. Accountability measures would be defined by the contract terms, including performance metrics and reporting requirements. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the lack of publicly available detailed performance data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Ship Systems Engineering
Mine Warfare Systems
Naval Vessel Maintenance and Modernization
Defense Engineering Services
Fleet Readiness Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award requires justification review.
Potential for non-competitive pricing.
Lack of transparency in competition process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.3 million to FINCANTIERI MARINE SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC.. 200207!022370!1700!BZ002 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002402C2204 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20011115!20020930!113068027!428407506!432811750!N!FDGM, INC !800 PRINCIPLE COURT, SUITE!CHESAPEAKE !VA!23320!16000!550!51!CHESAPEAKE !CHESAPEAKE (CITY) !VIRGINIA !+000000032000!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !A3 !SHIPS !2SFF!MINEHUNTER COSTL NON-MAG-MHC !541330!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FINCANTIERI MARINE SYSTEMS NORTH AMERICA, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-11-15. End: 2006-09-30.

What is the specific scope of 'Engineering Technical Services' being provided under this contract, particularly concerning the Minehunter Costal Non-Mag-MHC?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES' with a specific mention of 'MINEHUNTER COSTL NON-MAG-MHC'. While the exact technical details are not elaborated, this typically encompasses a range of activities such as design, development, testing, integration, maintenance, and lifecycle support for naval systems. For the Minehunter vessels, this could involve specialized engineering related to their mine detection, neutralization, or command and control systems, as well as hull integrity, propulsion, and other critical components. The 'Costl Non-Mag-Mhc' designation suggests a focus on cost-effectiveness and non-magnetic properties, crucial for mine countermeasures operations. The services likely include technical analysis, system upgrades, troubleshooting, and potentially training support to ensure the operational readiness and effectiveness of these specialized vessels.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternative solutions considered?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' (ct: NOT COMPETED), which signifies a sole-source award. The specific justification for this determination is not provided in the data extract. Generally, sole-source procurements are justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as when only one responsible source is available, or in cases of urgent and compelling need where competition is not feasible. Without the official justification document, it's impossible to ascertain the precise reasons. It is crucial for the agency to have documented why competition was not practicable, whether due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or other factors. Taxpayers would benefit from transparency regarding this justification to ensure public funds are used efficiently and that competition was not unnecessarily bypassed.

How does the awarded amount of $428,407,506 compare to historical spending on similar engineering technical services for naval programs?

Comparing this contract's value requires context on historical spending for similar services. The $428.4 million figure is substantial and indicative of a significant, long-term requirement. To benchmark this, one would need to analyze past contracts awarded by NAVSEA or other naval commands for engineering and technical support, particularly those related to specialized vessel classes like minehunters or other combat systems. Factors such as contract duration, scope complexity, and inflation rates would need to be considered. Without access to a broader dataset of comparable contracts, it's challenging to definitively state whether this amount represents a fair market value or is higher/lower than typical expenditures. However, given the 'Not Competed' status, there's an inherent risk that the price may not be as competitive as it could have been under a fully competed scenario.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude for engineering technical services?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude is the potential for reduced value for taxpayer money due to the lack of competition. Without competing bids, the government may not achieve the most favorable pricing or terms. There's also a risk of contractor complacency, where the absence of competitive pressure might lead to less innovation or efficiency over the contract's life. Furthermore, a sole-source award can limit the government's flexibility if the contractor's performance or capabilities do not meet expectations, as switching providers would require a new sole-source justification or a lengthy competitive process. Ensuring robust oversight and clear performance metrics becomes even more critical in such scenarios to mitigate these risks.

What is the track record of FDGM, INC. in providing engineering technical services to the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

The provided data identifies FDGM, INC. as the contractor. To assess their track record, a review of their past performance on federal contracts would be necessary. This would involve examining contract databases for previous awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. A strong track record typically includes successful delivery of services on time and within budget, positive performance reviews, and a history of compliance with contract terms. Without this specific historical performance data, it is difficult to provide a detailed assessment of FDGM, INC.'s reliability and capability for this significant contract.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Segretariato Generale Della Presidenza Della Repubblica

Address: 800 PRINCIPLE COURT, SUITE, CHESAPEAKE, VA, 23320

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline